CAT/C/62/D/702/2015 Delhi. Finally, the officer concluded that the complainants’ profiles did not fit the category of persons who would be of interest to central Indian authorities, and thus concluded that they would not be at risk upon return to India. 4.8 On 29 May 2015, the complainants applied for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The purpose of this remedy is to offer equitable relief where the applicant would suffer unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship if he or she were forced to apply for permanent resident status from outside the State party, which would be the normal avenue. What warrants relief varies ad hoc, but examples of hardship include adverse country conditions that have a direct, negative impact on the applicant. The complainants argued that they would suffer hardship as they were established in Canada and because of the risk they faced in India, reiterating the allegations made to the Refugee Protection Division. The application was denied on 10 November on the grounds that they were not so well established in Canada as to warrant an exemption to the usual rule that applications had to be made from outside Canada, and that they had not demonstrated that they were wanted by Indian authorities or would be of interest owing to their failed refugee status or any other reason. 4.9 The State party submits that the decisions of the pre-removal risk assessments may be judicially reviewed by the Federal Court with leave. A judicial stay of removal pending the final disposition of that application may also be available. On 22 September 2015, the complainants applied to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial review of the preremoval risk assessment decision. The complainants had until 22 October to provide the Federal Court with the documentation required to advance their leave application; however, they failed to do so. As a result, their leave application did not proceed beyond filing the initial application.22 4.10 On 22 September 2015, the complainants also applied to the Federal Court for a judicial stay of their removal, pending the outcome of their application for leave to seek judicial review of the pre-removal risk assessment decision. In support, they filed an affidavit and written submissions setting out allegations of the risk they would face if returned to India, including reference to the alleged arrest and assault of Avtar Singh. The complainants were represented by counsel. In order to obtain such a stay, all three of the following tests must be met: there must be a serious issue to be tried by way of judicial review; there will be irreparable harm if the removal order is not stayed; and the balance of convenience favours the complainants. On 24 September 2015, a Federal Court judge declined to grant the motion as it had not been determined that there was a serious matter to be tried by way of judicial review or that the complainants would face irreparable harm if the removal order were not stayed. Therefore, the judge concluded that the balance of convenience did not favour the complainants. As a result of the negative decisions of both the Refugee Protection Division and the pre-removal risk assessment, the complainants became subject to removal from Canada on 25 September 2015 but failed to appear as required. 4.11 As to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party asserts that the authors did not diligently follow through on their application for leave and judicial review of the pre-removal risk assessment and, further, that they similarly failed to have their humanitarian and compassionate application reviewed. Finally, the authors did not make a request to a Canadian Border Services Agency enforcement officer for an administrative deferral of their removal. Judicial reviews and requests for administrative deferral of removal can provide effective relief from removal and are remedies which must be exhausted by the authors for the purposes of admissibility. 4.12 A successful judicial review would result in an order for reconciliation of the impugned decision. The State party refers to the Committee’s Views in several communications which show that judicial review in the State party is not a mere formality and may, in appropriate cases, look at the substance of the case. 23 The State party addresses 22 23 6 The Federal Court has authority to dismiss the complainants’ application but had not done so by the date of the State party’s submission. See Committee against Torture, Aung v. Canada (CAT/C/36/D/273/2005), para. 6.3; and L.Z.B. and J.F.Z. v. Canada (CAT/C/39/D/304/2006).